The New York Times offers a very funny look at the new fashion for calling Obama a socialist and investigates this issue as if the phenomenon is a strange linguistic invasion that requires the expertise of a psychoanalyst.
Hence, the first expert to weigh in chalks the use of the word up to “unconscious anxieties about modernity.”
Where are the tomatoes to hurl at this history prof?
So on it goes with the sole exception of Steven Hayward who inches closer toward a realistic analysis, though he repeats that story about Mises leaving the Mont Pelerin Society in disgust at the direction the debate was taking (as I recall from the actual history, how to get the government more revenue through tax shifting).
Look, this subject is not complicated. More government control leads toward socialism; less government control leads away from socialism. In addition, there are both left-wing and right-wing forms of socialism. Why is calling Obama a socialist considered so wicked? Didn’t the left often call Bush a Nazi, which means national socialist?
{ 61 comments }
← Previous Comments
russ says:
“there isn’t enough money for adequate military defense. This lack then causes the country to be overrun, and peoples’ rights are violated even more.”
maybe yes and maybe no. i’ll give you a contrary example – if turkey were overrun, the kurds would probably be happier to take their chances with the new management than the old. in multiracial societies (democratic), many oppressed minority groups may be better off under regime change.
I forgot to mention Russ’s wonderful choice of the word “balk.” Brings to my mind what a horse is likely to do when he encounters something beyond his experience. Webster’s says: “hindrance”, “check”….or, in baseball, of course: “failure…to complete a motion.”
To resolve this issue, I think it would be helpful to consider how Marxists define the term “socialism”. The Communist Party of China (CPC) defines “socialism” as being public (i.e. state or political) ownership of the majority (over 50%) of the means of production (land, resources, factories, etc.). Likewise, “capitalism” is defined as private ownership of the majority of the means of production. Given that all the land, natural resources, and around 50% of company assets in China are state-owned, the CPC feels justified in its assertion that mainland China is still “socialist”. In the political sense then, according to these definitions, a “capitalist” would be someone who supports private ownership of the majority of the means of production and a “socialist” would be someone who supports public ownership of the majority of the means of production. Even if President Obama would not admit to supporting such large-scale (over 50%) public ownership of the means of production, given his support for all the recent nationalizations and bail-outs, it is understandable that many people are convinced that his actions suggest he is a socialist.
Anonymous
“I challenge you to illustrate why the argument isn’t sound.”
It isn’t sound because statements of value can’t be objectively true. You and Hoppe are as bad as Randroids.
mpolzkill wrote:
“I judge him by his highest moments; you search for his lowest to buoy you.”
Nonsense on stilts. It’s the anarchists here who are using Mises’ good name to further a political agenda that in all likelihood he would have found either risible or repugnant. All I am doing is reiterating the obvious truth that Mises was not an anarchist.
“It’s not a tactic, it’s a dismissal.”
Dismissal *is* a tactic. The fact is that your philosophy is a construction of pure imagination, Somalia and medieval Iceland notwithstanding. My philosophy is at least somewhat grounded in reality; we have had *much* smaller governments in the US than we do now. Grover Cleveland payed the White House bills and answered the door himself. That’s why I don’t have to provide proof for the possibility of more limited government. History does that for me. You have no history that really backs your philosophy up, and you’re apparently incapable of arguing for it politely, so you have come up with the perverse strategy of flipping reality on its head and pretending that minarchists are the ones on the fringe, not yourself. That then gives you the opportunity to exercise your true love; being rude. You then call me a moral coward, impugn my honesty; I’m honestly surprised that you haven’t yet questioned the legitimacy of my birth. You’re a real class act, and you’re on the intellectual level of Jimmy Carter calling Obama critics racists.
“dismissal *is* a tactic”
Well, you would know, you just tried it with Hoppe. I don’t use dismissal for the same reasons as you.
“political agenda”
Anarchism is not a political agenda. You don’t have the first clue what you’re talking about, another reason for your dismissal.
“construction of pure imagination”
It is your imagination that parasites with magic titles and badges make what everyone actually does of their own volition possible. Because there was never a time where this strain of parasites haven’t fooled most people such as yourself does not mean anything in itself.
“Grover Cleveland”
No one said that government can’t be smaller, I said it can’t be minimal. You habitually “straw man.”
“fringe”
We are both on the fringe. You are on the fringe AND a special pleader (how perfectly dreadful!)
“being rude”
An ancillary and unavoidable pleasure when describing the mentality of the conservative. Also your cries of “rudeness” are just as hilarious as those of the Dems against the SC congressman, and for the same reason: keep on stealing and killing, but let’s be “civilized” about it. Stop advocating theft which always results in murder and watch my “true love” mysteriously disappear.
“fear”
You are the one who brought it up earlier and admitted to it with no shame. I’m just running with it.
“impugn my honesty”
If you’re talking about my saying you were probably filled with dread before 9/11: that could mean unconsciously.
“Jimmy Carter”
If Jimmy Carter would have said Obama’s fantastically compromised, fellow war criminal critics and their benighted civilian stooges, are motivated primarily by stupid fear, THAT would put him EXACTLY on MY intellectual level here. And of course, THEN he would have been on to something, especially if he turned it back on his own gang, as I would. Someone else here had it: what are you scared of? Choose your brand of magic men to sing you a lullaby.
* It is in your imagination that parasites with magic titles and badges make possible what everyone actually does unaided and of their own volition.
And, of course whatever citizens are not doing to make their production possible; it is because said parasites will shoot them if they attempt it. You’re a real tired act, and you’re on the intellectual level of a 19th century slave master telling his property what they are and aren’t capable of.
Even if President Obama would not admit to supporting such large-scale (over 50%) public ownership of the means of production, given his support for all the recent nationalizations and bail-outs, it is understandable that many people are convinced that his actions suggest he is a socialist.
Even where he would not publicly advocate official government takeover and ownership of certain industries, the president (like most of his predecessors) frequently advocates greater and greater government control and regulation of many industries through a myriad of different laws such as licensing, patents, trust laws, taxes, subsidies, price controls, monetary policy, etc. If you exert significant control over an industry in this way, to the extent that whether the industry exists or not depends on whether it is tolerated or subsidized, and how it functions is determined by legal or regulatory fiat, then the government is the de facto owner of the industry.
That is why Obama is clearly a socialist, as was GWB and most other presidents, as indeed are most legislators and most members of the public.
Socialism is particularly two-faced and hypocritical in the USA and Canada because having more of a tradition of small government and free enterprise than the rest of the world, socialism is recognized as a bad word. So North American politicians have developed a special talent for renaming and disguising socialism whenever it rears its ugly head, and possess a nuclear arsenal of rhetorical tricks and a kennel of baying dogs to attack and marginalize anyone who calls it like it is.
Socialism: The willingness to use aggressive violence to accomplish an objective. Usually predicated upon one or more psychotic disorders such as the belief that such acts while undermining freedom and choice (a.k.a. society, the free market), somehow benefit society by the act of undermining it and wasting resources.
Synonyms: communism, terrorism, government, oppression, tyranny.
See also: anti-social personality disorder.
Can anyone respond to this article below? I am studyiing Auatrian economics and am currently analysing socialism, which i am against obviously. This article makes Venezuela look better than it is. Thanks.
VENEZUELA: ACHIEVEMENTS OF 10 YEARS OF REVOLUTION
Submitted by admin on Mon, 02/23/2009 – 00:12 During 10 years of revolution, the Bolivarian Government has been breaking free from paradigms, beating obstacles, exceeding all expectations, facing empires, revolutionizing consciousness, beating foreign and internal propaganda, and even more, defending, as the engine and fuel of the revolutionary project, the deep conviction that the human being is the center and principle of the society.
The most representative achievements can be evaluated quantitatively through the Missions, infrastructure works and technological advancements, among others, but the qualitative analysis leads us to three big conclusions: with the arrival of the Bolivarian Revolution, the quality of life has been boosted for most Venezuelans, social inequalities have been reduced significantly and Venezuela has made important steps in the struggle to reach the real conditions of a developed country.
ACHIEVEMENTS
1. REDUCTION OF POVERTY
During the administration of the Bolivarian Government led by President Hugo Chávez, the extreme poverty rate significantly fell from 42% in 1998 to 9.5%. This result allowed Venezuela to achieve in advance this UN Millennium Goal. General poverty was also significantly reduced, from 50.5% in 1998 to 33.4% in 2008.
Venezuela’s Human Development Index also increased from a 0.69 (medium development) in 1998 to 0.84 (high development) in 2008. Currently, Venezuela ranks 67 out of 179 countries according to the 2008 UNDP report.
Venezuela’s Gini coefficient fell to 0.4099, the lowest in the country’s history and in Latin America. In 1998 it was 0.4865.
2. ACCESS TO EDUCATION
In 2005, Venezuela achieved the goal set by UNESCO to declare a country an illiteracy-free territory; 96% of adults and elders know how to read and write. But we are still working and 99.6% of the population over the age of 15 is now literate.
Currently, the Venezuelan state spends 7% of the GDP on education, compared to 3.9% of Venezuela’s GDP in 1998. Without including the socialist missions (social programs), school enrolment was 6.2 million students in 1998; now it is 7.5 million students both in public and private schools.
The socialist missions, created as an initiative of President Chávez to look after the population excluded from the formal educative system, show the following statistics:
a. Mission Robinson II: 437,171 students, including 81,000 indigenous students, have graduated.
b. Mission Ribas: 510,585 students have graduated.
c. Mission Sucre: 571,917 Venezuelans are in the higher education system in 24 programs (career), in 334 different municipalities. 30,000 students have graduated from seven programs: education, environmental management, social management of local development, journalism, management, computer science, and agro-food production.
3. ACCESS TO HEALTH
Venezuela invests 4.2% of its GDP in health and it continues deepening strategies to guarantee Venezuelans free access to health with the creation of the social programs Barrio Adentro I-II-III and IV. Up to 2009, Barrio Adentro has made the following achievements:
a. 24,884,567 Venezuelans, that is to say 88.9% of the population, benefit from this mission.
b. 630,491 Venezuelan lives have been saved thanks to this mission.
c. Barrio Adentro has inaugurated: 6,531 popular health centers, 479 Integral Diagnosis Centers, 543 Integral Rehabilitation Centers, 26 High Technology Centers, 13 popular clinics, 459 popular opticians and 3019 locations offering medical and dental care.
The public health policies developed by the Bolivarian Government have managed to reduce the children mortality rate (children under 5 years) to 13.7%. In 1990 this figure was 25.8%.
4. SOCIAL SECURITY
Unemployment has been reduced by 50% during President Chávez’s administration, falling from 12% to 6.1% by early 2009.
In May 2007, the Venezuelan minimum wage became the highest in Latin America (US$372). In addition, workers receive a monthly bonus for food amounting to over US$139. Also, pensions have been increased to the minimum wage.
5. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
The Venezuelan economy has experienced 20 consecutive quarters of growth. The year 2004 stands out with an historical growth of 18.3%. The 2008 rate of growth was 4.9%. Our economy has grown by 526.98% compared to the Venezuelan economy in 1998.
Venezuela has the fourth largest economy in Latin America after Brazil, Mexico and Argentina.
6. FOOD SOVEREIGNTY
In order to guarantee the country’s food security and sovereignty, the Bolivarian Government created Mission Food, whose aim is to offer basic foodstuffs to the Venezuelan population at low prices and without intermediaries. This initiative materialized with the creation of a network of storing centers and stores (Mercal, PDVAL, ASA, FUNDAPROAL, and silos, among others).
In 1998, Venezuela produced 16,272,000 tons of vegetables. By 2008, Venezuela managed to produce 20,174,000 tons of food. This represents a 24% increase.
7. PUBLIC DEBT
The public debt dropped from 73.5% of the GDP in 1998 to 14.4% in 2008, placing the national deficit as one of the lowest in the World.
In 1998, a debt of $3 billion was paid off to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and to the World Bank (WB).
8. INTERNATIONAL RESERVES
By early 1999, the International Reserves amounted to US$14.3 billion. In January 2009, they amount to US$41.9 billion.
9. TECHNOLOGY SOVEREIGNTY
Before the Bolivarian government, there was practically no investment in science and technology. Today, 2.69% of Venezuela’s GDP is aimed at science and technology.
With the creation of the Infocentros (centres of information) and the National Technological Literacy Plan, the access of the population to information and communication technologies was boosted.
On October 29, 2008, Venezuela launched the Simón Bolívar Satellite from the Sichuan’s Satellite Center in the People’s Republic of China. It is operative and the Venezuelan state has taken control. Satellite services will be offered to thousands of communities all around Venezuela, and beyond our borders in other Latin American and Caribbean countries, with tele-education and telemedicine programs.
The consolidation of Venezuela’s technological sovereignty also includes the nationalization of the main, strategic, telephone company, Venezuela’s National Company of Telephones (CANTV, Spanish acronym).
10. ELIMINATION OF GENDER INEQUALITY
Gender equality adds to the achievements of the Venezuelan society. Women’s participation in Communal Centers is 60%; 4 out of the 5 Public Powers are headed by women. The women’s presence in the National Assembly (Venezuelan parliament) increased from 10% to 16.5%.
[Ministry of People's Power for Communication and Information. January 30, 2009.]
Without debating the legitmacy of any of the cited statistics, one thing that we should question is whether socialism is really the cause of Venezuala’s apparent prosperity. I would guess that many other latin american nations have seen similar progress in standards of living over the last 10 years because of improvements in technology and capital investment. And they’ve managed to do it without having large oil reserves like Venezuala. Also, socialism can often seem like it increases prosperity in the short-term, before the disastrous long-term effects are felt. Social security and medicare both made the first recipients more prosperous than they would have been because they were borrowing money from people that were not even born at the time of their implementation. If you looked at the US two years after these programs, you may have concluded that people were richer for having them. What you would not have seen is the things that could not be done at some future time because of the deferred costs for these unmitigated disasters.
Socialism rewards laziness and enslaves the desperate…it is a scheme deployed by godless, thin skinned tyrants. Socialism is stealing from others to bribe others, it a path of deceptive destruction.
https://truthisjoy.wordpress.com/2011/04/16/a-future-and-a-hope/
← Previous Comments
Comments on this entry are closed.